ReviewHealthcare technology letters
Effect of Technology-Supported Measures Used for Care Transition Decisions for Chronic Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Healthcare technology letters. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the impact of digital interventions used to support care transitions on health outcomes and hospital costs compared with usual clinical care for patients with chronic diseases, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search of Cochrane, ACM, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO was performed from database inception until 6 October 2023. Meta-analysis was conducted for hospitalisation outcomes, mortality rates, and cost-effectiveness, while quality of life, mobility and qualitative outcomes were summarised narratively. Following full-text screening, 34 studies were eligible for review. After excluding eight studies due to a high risk of bias, the final analysis included 25 studies comprising a total of 29,724 patients. The meta-analysis revealed a marginal but statistically significant reduction in hospitalisation rates (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.01,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.